PDA

View Full Version : Sparkle 8600GT with extremely slow memory clock.HELP please


April 21st 08, 03:11 PM
I have just bought a Sparkle Geforce 8600 GT (SF-PX86GT512U2-HP) for
AU
$135.


http://www.sparkle.com.tw/product_detail.asp?id=63&sub_id=121

I found out that Sparkle fits a very slow DDR2 memory on this card.
GPU-z reported:

Gpu = 540 MHz (That's fine)
Memory = 300 MHz (?!!!!!!)
shader = 1188 MHz (That's fine)

RivaTuner , AtiTool and GPU-z all reported that the memory clock of
this card only runs at 300Mhz (Which means x2=600MHz?), compared to
other brands' 8600GT cards .Their memory clock all runs at around
1.4GHz-1.6GHz range (the Gigabyte GV-NX86T512H) for example.

How come a 8600GT card runs at 600 MHz memory clock spds?
My old 6600GT at least have 1000MHz memory clock speed.


Strange thing on Sparkle web site is that they do report the memory
clock speed of their DDR3 range of 8600GT but said nothing about the
8600GT DDR2 memory clock speed?


I read a lots about memory clock of other brands of 8600GT on the net
and I never saw such a slow memory clock like this card. Did I miss
something? Maybe I interpretate the clock speed wrongly, x4 or x2?

If you have a Sparkle 8600GT card with 512 MB DDR2 please check for
me with Rivatuner, ATiTool or GPU-z to see if it reports
memory clock at 300MHz or not.


Your feedback is greatly appreciated.


Thanks and regards,

Paul
April 21st 08, 03:50 PM
wrote:
> I have just bought a Sparkle Geforce 8600 GT (SF-PX86GT512U2-HP) for
> AU
> $135.
>
>
> http://www.sparkle.com.tw/product_detail.asp?id=63&sub_id=121
>
> I found out that Sparkle fits a very slow DDR2 memory on this card.
> GPU-z reported:
>
> Gpu = 540 MHz (That's fine)
> Memory = 300 MHz (?!!!!!!)
> shader = 1188 MHz (That's fine)
>
> RivaTuner , AtiTool and GPU-z all reported that the memory clock of
> this card only runs at 300Mhz (Which means x2=600MHz?), compared to
> other brands' 8600GT cards .Their memory clock all runs at around
> 1.4GHz-1.6GHz range (the Gigabyte GV-NX86T512H) for example.
>
> How come a 8600GT card runs at 600 MHz memory clock spds?
> My old 6600GT at least have 1000MHz memory clock speed.
>
>
> Strange thing on Sparkle web site is that they do report the memory
> clock speed of their DDR3 range of 8600GT but said nothing about the
> 8600GT DDR2 memory clock speed?
>
>
> I read a lots about memory clock of other brands of 8600GT on the net
> and I never saw such a slow memory clock like this card. Did I miss
> something? Maybe I interpretate the clock speed wrongly, x4 or x2?
>
> If you have a Sparkle 8600GT card with 512 MB DDR2 please check for
> me with Rivatuner, ATiTool or GPU-z to see if it reports
> memory clock at 300MHz or not.
>
>
> Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
>

On the Chaintech site, I can see a wide range of clock speeds for the
memory on their cards. I also see the same thing on the Newegg site,
when looking at 44 different 8600GT cards.

http://www.chaintechusa.com/a211_product_cate2.php?pos=8

You can see more examples listed here.

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=513&card2=

Looks like up to a factor of 4 between the slowest memory
and the fastest available memory.

Paul

April 21st 08, 06:38 PM
On Apr 22, 12:50*am, Paul > wrote:
> wrote:
> > I have just bought a Sparkle Geforce 8600 GT (SF-PX86GT512U2-HP) for
> > AU
> > $135.
>
> >http://www.sparkle.com.tw/product_detail.asp?id=63&sub_id=121
>
> > I found out that Sparkle fits a very slow DDR2 memory on this card.
> > GPU-z reported:
>
> > Gpu = 540 MHz (That's fine)
> > Memory = 300 MHz (?!!!!!!)
> > shader = 1188 MHz (That's fine)
>
> > RivaTuner , AtiTool and GPU-z all reported that the memory clock of
> > this card only runs at 300Mhz (Which means x2=600MHz?), compared to
> > other brands' 8600GT cards .Their memory clock all runs at around
> > 1.4GHz-1.6GHz range (the Gigabyte GV-NX86T512H) for example.
>
> > How come a 8600GT card runs at 600 MHz memory clock spds?
> > My old 6600GT at least have 1000MHz memory clock speed.
>
> > Strange thing on Sparkle web site is that they do report the memory
> > clock speed of their DDR3 range of 8600GT but said nothing about the
> > 8600GT DDR2 memory clock speed?
>
> > I read a lots about memory clock of other brands of 8600GT on the net
> > and I never saw such a slow memory clock like this card. Did I miss
> > something? Maybe I interpretate the clock speed wrongly, x4 or x2?
>
> > *If you have a Sparkle 8600GT card with 512 MB DDR2 please check for
> > me with Rivatuner, ATiTool or GPU-z to see if it reports
> > memory clock at 300MHz or not.
>
> > Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
>
> > Thanks and regards,
>
> On the Chaintech site, I can see a wide range of clock speeds for the
> memory on their cards. I also see the same thing on the Newegg site,
> when looking at 44 different 8600GT cards.
>
> http://www.chaintechusa.com/a211_product_cate2.php?pos=8
>
> You can see more examples listed here.
>
> http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=513&card2=
>
> Looks like up to a factor of 4 between the slowest memory
> and the fastest available memory.
>
> * * Paul- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


I wonder how much performance hit the Sparkle card would suffer
compared to other high memory clock frequency card if it is only
600MHz to start with?

Mr.E Solved!
April 22nd 08, 12:57 AM
wrote:
>
> I wonder how much performance hit the Sparkle card would suffer
> compared to other high memory clock frequency card if it is only
> 600MHz to start with?

Consider yourself fortunate you don't notice the difference in your
configuration.

Texture memory has its uses and faster is better, but in many instances
fast enough is exactly that and isn't what's keeping you from faster FPS.

It's not a one for one sliding scale of performance, you can't make
predictions on min avg or max fps in a time demo based on a texture
memory increase. The application and how you have it configured makes
all the difference.

If you really are interested in learning more about the relationship
between core speed (and domain speeds) as well as memory speeds and FPS
performance, get familiar with 3DMark2K+6 and overclocking tools like
rivatuner. You can then compare component benchmarks with time demo
results and see what results in actual gains, and what does not.

As a rule of thumb, core speed increases are always welcome, memory
speed increases more welcome at higher resolution.

First of One[_2_]
April 23rd 08, 02:23 AM
The reference memory speed for the 8600GT is 700MHz DDR, or 1.4 GHz
effective. A 57% memory speed decrease is pretty severe. The memory chips
are exposed on your card, right? What latency are the chips rated for?

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


> wrote in message
...
I wonder how much performance hit the Sparkle card would suffer
compared to other high memory clock frequency card if it is only
600MHz to start with?

April 23rd 08, 09:21 AM
On Apr 23, 11:23*am, "First of One" > wrote:
> The reference memory speed for the 8600GT is 700MHz DDR, or 1.4 GHz
> effective. A 57% memory speed decrease is pretty severe. The memory chips
> are exposed on your card, right? What latency are the chips rated for?

I will read the latency and let you know.

I think I learned a lesson from this experience that I should not have
assumed anything and should make thorough online research before went
out and buy video card.

I thought that all 8600GT cards should be manufactured at minimum
specifications of core and memory speed set forth by NVIDIS reference
card (540/1400).

I am really shocked to read that my card runs at a 9.6GB/s memory
bandwidth, compared to a 26.00Gb/s of the reference card.

Even my old 6600GT (500/1000) (which I upgraded from) has higher
bandwidth (16.00GB/s) than this card.

I feel so upset having paid such a high price (Au$135) for the card
thas has SLOWEST memory clock of all 8600GT cards on the market right
now.

First of One[_2_]
April 24th 08, 03:06 AM
Just to be clear, the 300 MHz memory clock you saw was in 3D, right? Most
nVidia cards since the FX5800 throttle back under 2D to conserve power. You
can confirm this by running Rivatuner's real-time strip charts.

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


> wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 11:23 am, "First of One" > wrote:
> The reference memory speed for the 8600GT is 700MHz DDR, or 1.4 GHz
> effective. A 57% memory speed decrease is pretty severe. The memory chips
> are exposed on your card, right? What latency are the chips rated for?

I will read the latency and let you know.

I think I learned a lesson from this experience that I should not have
assumed anything and should make thorough online research before went
out and buy video card.

I thought that all 8600GT cards should be manufactured at minimum
specifications of core and memory speed set forth by NVIDIS reference
card (540/1400).

I am really shocked to read that my card runs at a 9.6GB/s memory
bandwidth, compared to a 26.00Gb/s of the reference card.

Even my old 6600GT (500/1000) (which I upgraded from) has higher
bandwidth (16.00GB/s) than this card.

I feel so upset having paid such a high price (Au$135) for the card
thas has SLOWEST memory clock of all 8600GT cards on the market right
now.

Mr.E Solved!
April 24th 08, 07:35 AM
First of One wrote:
> Just to be clear, the 300 MHz memory clock you saw was in 3D, right? Most
> nVidia cards since the FX5800 throttle back under 2D to conserve power. You
> can confirm this by running Rivatuner's real-time strip charts.
>

The OP couldn't even be bothered to run any benchmarks, he does not know
and seemingly does not care that his card might just be a-ok.

OP if that ram really is clocked slower, you can easily increase it.
Sadly, it is a process that involves a minimum of hand-wringing, so you
might be disappointed. :)

April 24th 08, 11:39 AM
On Apr 24, 4:35*pm, "Mr.E Solved!" > wrote:
> First of One wrote:
> > Just to be clear, the 300 MHz memory clock you saw was in 3D, right? Most
> > nVidia cards since the FX5800 throttle back under 2D to conserve power. You
> > can confirm this by running Rivatuner's real-time strip charts.
>
> The OP couldn't even be bothered to run any benchmarks, he does not know
> and seemingly does not care that his card might just be a-ok.
>
> OP if that ram really is clocked slower, you can easily increase it.
> Sadly, it is a process that involves a minimum of hand-wringing, so you
> might be disappointed. :)

The 300 MHz is in 3d as well (effective 600MHz) (I have tested it with
AtiTool).
Based on this web site:
http://liightt.blogspot.com/2008/01/sparkle-8600gt-ddr2-512mb.html

The card run Crysis at 14-22 fps at 1024 x 768 and 9fps at 1280x1024
at medium setting.
I don't know if this is OK?

I do not think my card is OK based solely on the fact that my card
runs at a 9.6GB/s memory bandwidth, compared to a 22.00Gb/s of the
reference card.
The strange thing is when I did a Google search on Sparkle 8600GT at
540/600
the only results I see are originated from Poland or Lithuania...I
never see a result from US, UK or Australia. That makes me think this
is a strange card, for a different market...But somehow made it to
Australia, where I may be the only one who got it. (Conspiracy
Theory:)

I may have a weird psychology that if I did not know about the
specifications of the card, I might have been happy with it (Ignorance
is bliss) but once I knew about its abysmal memory speed compared to
other normal 8600GT cards, I could not get over that fact and now
looked at the card with different views...
I know it's weird to comprehend, but honestly that was what I feel.
Performance anxiety kills joy....

Mr.E Solved!
April 24th 08, 03:27 PM
wrote:
> On Apr 24, 4:35 pm, "Mr.E Solved!" > wrote:
>> First of One wrote:
>>> Just to be clear, the 300 MHz memory clock you saw was in 3D, right? Most
>>> nVidia cards since the FX5800 throttle back under 2D to conserve power. You
>>> can confirm this by running Rivatuner's real-time strip charts.
>> The OP couldn't even be bothered to run any benchmarks, he does not know
>> and seemingly does not care that his card might just be a-ok.
>>
>> OP if that ram really is clocked slower, you can easily increase it.
>> Sadly, it is a process that involves a minimum of hand-wringing, so you
>> might be disappointed. :)
>
> The 300 MHz is in 3d as well (effective 600MHz) (I have tested it with
> AtiTool).
> Based on this web site:
> http://liightt.blogspot.com/2008/01/sparkle-8600gt-ddr2-512mb.html
>
> The card run Crysis at 14-22 fps at 1024 x 768 and 9fps at 1280x1024
> at medium setting.
> I don't know if this is OK?
>
> I do not think my card is OK based solely on the fact that my card
> runs at a 9.6GB/s memory bandwidth, compared to a 22.00Gb/s of the
> reference card.
> The strange thing is when I did a Google search on Sparkle 8600GT at
> 540/600
> the only results I see are originated from Poland or Lithuania...I
> never see a result from US, UK or Australia. That makes me think this
> is a strange card, for a different market...But somehow made it to
> Australia, where I may be the only one who got it. (Conspiracy
> Theory:)
>
> I may have a weird psychology that if I did not know about the
> specifications of the card, I might have been happy with it (Ignorance
> is bliss) but once I knew about its abysmal memory speed compared to
> other normal 8600GT cards, I could not get over that fact and now
> looked at the card with different views...
> I know it's weird to comprehend, but honestly that was what I feel.
> Performance anxiety kills joy....
>

Oh dear. I do empathize with you, Aussies have a difficult hardware
market. High prices, limited availability, ironically all while being
substantially closer to the factory. To top it all off it appears AU is
where the dreg products get sent, no matter what the product.

The good news is, if you are satisfied with 22 FPS MAX, 14 AVG and 9 FPS
MIN in Crysis @ 1024, then you are good to go. Those settings are so low
as to be considered unplayable, so you got lucky.

Run 3DMark, get FPS and shader scores, then use ORB to see how your
results compare, all the while saving your tokens and stamps and juju
beans to trade for a better card, the 8600's are runts of the
gaming-card litter.